Debate 12 - Paper 1

The Hawley Review: what does it offer construction - cart or horse?

Dr Mike Sanderson, Chief Executive of EMTA, the National Training Organisation (NTO) for Engineering Manufacture

Let me make it clear at the outset that the views I am about to express are solely mine and not, therefore, necessarily those of EMTA, the organization which I manage. As a materials engineer I am flattered to be asked to address this Construction Form and should emphasise that my organization, EMTA, is not directly involved with either the construction industry or civil engineering: the education and training for construction and civil engineering is the responsibility of our sister National Training Organisation, the Construction Industry Training Board.

The Hawley Review was set up by DTI Minister, Lord Sainsbury, in November 1999. At the time EMTA were most unhappy at the way that the Hawley Working Group had been constituted and items of reference. We felt that it was inappropriate that a Working Group, with such wide terms of reference, should be made up only of Government officials and representatives of the Engineering Council.

We had no quarrel with the Minister’s objective and acknowledge readily that he personally had demonstrated a very strong commitment to the unity of the engineering community over many years. In setting up the Hawley Working Group on such an exclusive basis, however, we felt that he had been badly advised by his officials.

Events have moved on quite a lot since November 1999. The Hawley Group published three reports, the last of which, the Stage 3 report, was circulated widely in December 2000. I was not impressed by any of the Hawley reports, their content contained very little that was new and the quality of the research in the Stage 3 report was, in my judgement, somewhat inadequate.

As many of you know, Lord Sainsbury called a large consultative meeting of the wider engineering community on St. Valentine’s Day, 14th February, 2001, at which a number of very significant announcements were made. These, I have to say, bore little resemblance to the content of any of the Hawley Working Group’s interim reports.

It was proposed that in anticipation of significant changes to the constitution of the Engineering Council, a shadow ‘Engineering and Technology Board’ should be established with six working groups dealing with:-

• Constitution and governance

• Business and industry needs and services

• Communication and promotion of engineering

• Making membership of institutions and registration more attractive

• Education and training

• Continuing professional development

It was proposed that members of the ‘Shadow’ Board should be drawn not just from Government and the Institutions but also from industry and from some of the national bodies representing the engineering industry such as EEF and my own organization, EMTA.?

The title ‘Hawley Review” was abandoned and substituted by ‘Sainsbury Initiative’.

At a stroke the whole process had moved from an exclusive platform to an inclusive platform and on that basis I was happy to advise my organization to put the past behind us and to offer total support to the re-branded initiative. EMTA’s Chairman, The Rt Hon Lord Trefgarne, agreed to chair the Education and Training Working Group and I agreed to sit on the shadow Engineering and Technology Board.

I see the Sainsbury Initiative as an obvious next step to a number of important initiatives that have gone before it such as the DTI’s ‘Action for Engineering Initiative’ which started in 1994 and the ‘Campaign to Promote Engineering’ initiatives which started in 1997. Both of these initiatives have made a real contribution to promoting the unity of the engineering community which I believe has been of benefit to all of us including the civil engineering and construction communities. As a result of these two initiatives there are now many more areas where we are all working together in harmony than had hitherto been the case.

The purpose of this Edge Debate is to examine whether the Hawley review (now the Sainsbury Initiative) has much to offer the construction industry. In some ways, therefore, the debate is premature since none of us know what the outcomes of the six working groups will be or how far reaching will be the governance changes recommended to the Senate of the Engineering Council. All we can do is to speculate on a variety of possible outcomes.

The first point that I would make is that, whatever the outcome, it is to everybody’s benefit that the ‘new” Engineering Council and the existing Construction Industry. Council and Science Council work together in complementary roles and are not in competition. Many young people looking at a technical career in the widest sense need to explore many options which span the science, construction, technology and engineering fields.

My view is that in the formative advice we give to young people the whole technical community should try to speak with one voice to enthuse young people with the excitement of a technical career when compared with the service industries such as tourism, hairdressing, media studies or banking.

Having said that it is important to acknowledge that the construction industry, made up of civil engineers, architects, building service engineers, quantity surveyors etc., is a coherent and homogenous whole which also needs to present a coherent and independent voice.

There is clearly, therefore, a possible tension between these two positions but one. I believe, that we should strive to overcome.

I know that bodies like the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers have not always had the easiest of relationships with the Engineering Council but with goodwill some areas of real progress have been made.

A real problem in the past has been with the Engineering Council and its register of engineers has been perceived by industry to be largely irrelevant. I say this with some authority. Over the last 35 years I have employed literally hundreds of engineers. I have chosen them largely on the basis of the degree or apprenticeship programme that they followed. The designations CEng, IEng or EngTech have been largely irrelevant to me.

I believe that the idea of an inclusive Engineering and Technology Board in which industry as well as the institutions and academia have a strong voice offers us an exciting way forward and a positive vehicle for addressing the ’sins of the past’.

I believe that the construction industry with its long established tradition of technical professionalism has a real part to play in helping that come about and I very much hope that you can be persuaded to be a very active player in both the formative and the implementation stages of the initiative.